Category: Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 – Common Sense

Illegal Gamesmanship

DELAY OF THE RESTART OF PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
Often times in the MLS I see a very frustrating tactic and I have seen this in the matches I referee. Players stand in front of the ball at free kicks, especially in dangerous areas. Often times because of the unpunished nature of the offense it also happens at midfield. Players often times want a quick restart and this prevents this tactic. I feel frustrated as a biased fan. I can’t imagine how frustrated players get and parents get at youth matches. I imagine that both sides are getting frustrated.
Since I feel like the enforcement of the law is not very consistent with the 7+7 memorandum I want to know how to prevent the tactic and when does it become a cautionable offense. What are the criteria for it to become cautionable? I know what the memorandum says but what sort of advice do you have on enforcing this law?

One example (from a biased Seattle fan) would be the incident where Riley was sent off in the LA Galaxy match. Shouldn’t the player who clearly “provoked” the confrontation receive a caution. Under the 7+7 memorandum provoking a confrontation by touching the ball after the referee has stopped play is one of the offenses of special concern of FIFA. I was surprised to find it was not in the week in review.

USSF answer (June 11, 2009):
We are fortunate to have input from Brian Hall, U. S. Soccer’s Manager of Assessment and Training.

First, let us address your question regarding the Riley situation. You are correct, the player who withheld the ball from Riley and, therefore, prevented Riley from putting the ball into play quickly should have been cautioned for delaying the restart of play. This exact subject was covered in U.S. Soccer’s “Week In Review 8” which can be found at http://www.ussoccer.com/referees/weekinreview.jsp.html (select week 8).

Explanation and video review of the subject are covered coinciding with Video Clip 2: Los Angeles at Seattle.

Now, to your broader question. Referees have been instructed and continue to receive guidance relative to delaying the restart and not respecting the required distance. In fact, the overall management of free kick restarts is covered as one of U.S. Soccer Referee Program’s main directives for 2009.

These directives can be downloaded at: http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_13172742.html. However, if you are watching the game worldwide, you will see referees elsewhere are facing the exact same challenges.

In the 2008-09 publication of the Laws of the Game, FIFA revised the wording relative to “distance” and free kicks. Check the new section FIFA has introduced to replace the old “Questions and Answers:” “Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees.” In this section, the term “distance” is defined:

“If a player decides to take a free kick quickly and an opponent is less than 9.15 meters from the ball intercepts it, the referee must allow play to continue.” It also states….

“If a player decides to take a free kick quickly and an opponent who is near the ball deliberately prevents him taking the kick, the referee must caution the player for delaying the restart.”

Key terms are “intercepts,” and “deliberately prevents.” Upon reading U.S. Soccer’s directive on “Free Kick and Restart Management,” you will see that “deliberately prevents” is defined as “lunging or advancing forward or toward the ball.” So, if a defender is less than 10 yards and he/she lunges or advances forward toward the ball and then makes contact with the ball, this player must be cautioned for delaying the restart. On the other hand, if an attacker takes a free kick and the defender is less than 10 yards but in view of the attacker, then the attacker assumes the risk of the quick free kick and any defensive contact would not be punishable (the kicker knew the location of the defender at the time he/she took the free kick).

Finally, as the directive implores officials, preventative measures should be utilized. Upon seeing players who act as a “statue” in front of the ball or who are less than 10 yards, referees should use presence to move the defender back and prevent further occurrences.

…
Advantage

OFFSIDE AND ADVANTAGE

Posted on by

Question:
The assistant signals an offside position against team A.

The central ref does not notice the signal. Meanwhile team B regains possession of the ball and on the counter attack they score. During all this time the AR still keeps his flag up. The central ref allows the goal, but before the restart he notices the AR’s flag and goes to him. The AR tells him about the offside position. The ref disallows the goal and comes back to award team B the indirect free kick due to the offside position signaled by the AR.

What should have been the correct decision? I have understood that there is no advantage at offsides, so the offside needs to be punished, right?

Myself, I would have allowed the goal, as I would have considered that the AR made a mistake keeping the flag up. The recommendation is that if the AR signals the offside position and the central ref does not see the signal, the AR must put down the flag when the defending team has gained clear possession of the ball. Right?

USSF answer (June 5, 2009):
The clear and uncontested answer is that the assistant referee (AR) should have lowered the flag as soon as the opposing team gained control of the ball. (See the Interpretation/Guidelines for Referees, Law 6, in the back of the Law book.) Allow the goal, slap the AR on the wrist for keeping the flag up unnecessarily and thus interfering with the game.

That said, there are some disturbing statements in your question that could confuse referees, assistant referees, players, coaches, and spectators.

1. Signal offside position?
The assistant referee (AR) should NEVER signal simply offside position. He or she should signal only a definite offside; this means that the player in question is in an offside position and is involved in play. The referee than makes the decision as to whether there truly is offside, or that the offside signaled by the AR will not be called. In other words, offside either is or is not. In all events, the AR must know for certain that a player in an offside position is involved in play before the AR lifts the flag.

2. Advantage:
The advantage clause can be invoked only on infringements of Law 12, not on infringements of other Laws. Those who say that advantage may be called on offside are confusing two meanings (or categories) of the same word. The first, “Advantage” as treated in Law 5, applies only to violations of Law 12: It means that the referee believes that the team that had committed the foul (or misconduct) would benefit from a stoppage and the team that had been fouled would lose a good opportunity to advance the ball. This is the only situation in which the the referee gives the advantage signal of upswept arms and states, “Advantage, play on.”

The second, a “silent” advantage, applies to any other violation of the Laws COMMITTED BY A PLAYER (offside, second-touch on restarts, encroachment under Law 14, interfering with the goalkeeper on a corner kick) for which the impact is so fleeting or the ball changes possession so quickly that stopping play would unnecessarily interfere with the flow of the match. Offenses for which “silent” advantage is applied would not be counted in determining persistent infringement. For all other violations of the Law not committed by a player (“foreign” ball or outside agent entering the field, lack of corner flags), no advantage of either sort would be appropriate and the referee would apply the concept of doubtful or trifling in deciding what to do.

A third situation that seems to afflict some referees is the wish to call “play on” and signal the advantage when there has been no foul, but simply some sort of contact that was not a foul. In cases like this, the referee should find something else to say other than “play on” and should definitely NOT give the advantage signal: “Go on, no foul”; “Nothing there”; or “I saw it, number 6 [or whatever number applies], and there was no foul.”…

Advantage

ADVANTAGE VS. MISCONDUCT AND “NATURAL” STOPPAGES REDUX

Posted on by

Question:
In the UEFA championship match, there was a situation where the referee applied advantage to a reckless foul (deserving of a caution) and allowed play to continue.  Over the course of the next several seconds, the advantage was fully realized but, in the end, the ball ended up in the hands of the opposing team’s goalkeeper.  At that time, the referee stopped play and showed a yellow card for the reckless foul.  Is this proper?  I thought you had to wait for the ball to leave the field before giving the card?  Was the restart correct?

USSF answer (June 2, 2009):
Several questions have come in regarding this incident, a few referring directly to the UEFA match and others raising the issue generally.  Although we have answered these questions individually, there has been some misunderstanding of what is truly at issue here.  Accordingly, we are using this latest question to offer some general advice for handling such situations.

Several referees felt that the referee, having decided not to stop play immediately for misconduct based on the application of the advantage concept, cannot thereafter stop play solely because the advantage, which lasted long enough to erase the foul, has ended. Our position is not only yes, he can do that, but we would ask in return, why not? The Law requires only that the card be given at the next stoppage of play and, per the Law, that can occur by the ball leaving the field (which is often the ONLY type of stoppage considered here) or by the referee stopping play. Why do referees stop play? Well, there are hundreds of reasons, including (see Advice to Referees) simply wanting to talk to a player as well as such more obvious things as injuries, weather, another foul, etc., or simply for the good of the game”!

We recommend for everyone’s reading the Interpretations/Guidelines (on p. 90 of the 2008/2009 Laws) regarding the referee missing the AR’s flag for severe misconduct and reiterated in the USSF Memorandum Supplement 2008:

Law 6
Both last year and again this year, the International Board has created an exception to the general rule that, if advantage is applied to misconduct, the appropriate card must be shown and the proper action taken (e.g., the player sent off) at the next stoppage; otherwise, the opportunity to card has been lost. The Interpretations provide that, if an AR signals for violent conduct but the signal is not seen until after play is restarted after the next stoppage, the referee may still display a red card and send the player off the field. If this should occur, the restart is based on the current stoppage of play rather than on the violent conduct that occurred previously.

USSF advises that:
– this exception is not limited to “violent conduct” in its official sense as a form of misconduct but applies as well to serious foul play (where violence or excessive force is involved) and other acts of misconduct,
– the AR must have signaled for the misconduct at the time it occurred and maintained the signal until it is seen by the referee, and
– if play is stopped solely in response to the signal by the AR, play is restarted with a dropped ball where the ball was when play was stopped (except for the special circumstances involving restarts in the goal area) but otherwise the restart is in accordance with the Law.

Referees are strongly urged to cover this type of situation in their pregame discussion and to make clear what sorts of misconduct are serious enough to warrant maintaining the AR’s signal past the next stoppage of play. If a player has received a second yellow card in the same match but was not at that time shown a red card and sent off, the referee remains able to correct the error at any time it is brought to his or her attention by a member of the officiating team.

This information from the Interpretations/Guidelines is not directly related to the question at hand and some will argue that it is also “not specifically authorized” in the Laws of the Game. However, there are many things we do that are “not specifically authorized” and fall under the words used in the Laws themselves, “If, in the opinion of the referee.” In this case the solution is indeed part and parcel of the Laws and it prepares the way for a more proactive role for the referee after applying the advantage. If the referee has to stop the game because no “natural” stoppage seems imminent, then he can do so. Referees are expected to do what is needed to meet the demands of the Spirit of the Game, to give the players a fair game. Waiting for a “natural” stoppage in this game would have left open a path for more infringements. Better to stop them now, before they occur, rather than wait and hope.

As we read it, the International Board was so concerned about violent conduct going unpunished that it carved out this exception to the general rule that a card not given at the next stoppage (natural or “unnatural”) is lost forever. With this in mind, why should the referee be prevented from implementing the same spirit by stopping play himself after the advantage has been realized and the opposing team (the one that committed the violent conduct in the first place!) now has control of the ball? This does not mean that the referee should in every case do as was done in this situation, stopping play without waiting for a “natural” stoppage. However, it does mean that the referee must keep his or her finger on the pulse of the game, applying, as we suggest in Advice 13.5, his or her feeling for the game in what FIFA calls “Fingerspitzengefühl” (literally: “sensing with one’s fingertips”). Only by exercising common sense can the referee do what is correct in such cases.…

Ball in Play

MLS: CHICAGO VS. CHIVAS, 28 MAY 2009

Posted on by

Question:
I am really confused by a call that was made on this game, and was hoping maybe you could shed some light on it for me. About 12 minutes into the game, Chicago was awarded a corner kick. Prior to the kick being taken a Chivas player body slammed a Chicago player inside the penalty box (the defender swung the offensive player around by the neck and then picked him up with both hands and laid him on the ground). The referee did not call a foul, and the AR called the corner kick back for a re-kick. Did I miss something? Shouldn’t that have been at least a yellow card to the Chivas player, if not a red since the ball was not yet in play? And shouldn’t there have been a PK for Chicago?

USSF answer (June 1, 2009):
Careful evaluation of the corner will show that the contact occurred before the corner kick was taken. Hence, given the fact that the ball was not in play, you must restart with the original corner kick.

Nowhere in the law does it state that a yellow card or red card needs to be issued because the ball is not in play. As you are aware, I’m sure, there is lots of holding taking place during corner kicks. Referees have been instructed to take a proactive role in dealing with this holding. This is the case in this situation.

The referee team takes a proactive role by stopping the play and retaking the kick. The referee’s whistle is a bit delayed because he is attempting to judge whether the offended team would benefit by allowing play to continue instead of retaking the corner kick. The assistant referee does help the referee by telling him that the ball was not in play at the time of the hold. As a result, the referee makes the correct decision to retake the corner kick.

In terms of misconduct, the referee decided that the holding was merely “careless” and not “reckless” and, thus, that is was not unsporting behavior. Consequently, he did not issue a caution to the defender. The referee could have been stronger in dealing with the holding defender by having a word with him and this may have assisted in proactively sending a message to prevent further holding. If you watch the entire game, you will see that the referee stopped the game on several other occasions prior to a corner kick being taken due to holding and jostling in the penalty area.…

Law 11 - Offside

SORTING OUT THE MARCH MEMO

Posted on by

Question:
Still trying to sort out the March memo.

Attacking team sets up for a DFK from mid-field near the touch line.

Defending team sets their line along the 18. In the corner diagonal from the spot of the DFK, one defender positions himself between two attackers. Prior to the kick, the two attackers move (or are trapped) into an offside position. Kick comes across the field and into the corner where the defender heads the ball out of touch. No other players touch the ball and all other players (both attackers and defenders) are at least 15-20 yards away. What is the correct restart?

USSF answer (June 1, 2009):
If by “out of touch” you mean into touch, i. e., over the touch line rather than over the goal line, the answer is throw-in — unless, in the opinion of the referee, the defender was “distracted” by the two attackers, in which case you have an indirect free kick for offside. The latter does not seem likely, at least not from your description.…

Advantage

WHERE TO RESTART?

Posted on by

Question:
In a 3-on-2 situation, attacker A1 for Team A is fouled from behind at the 20 yard line, near the corner of the penalty area.

Before falling, he manages to play the ball ahead, just outside of the penalty area, to teammate A2, so the referee applies advantage, thinking that the teammate may be able to cross to an unmarked third attacker who is wide open in line with the far post. However, before A2 can cross, he too is fouled at the 6-yard line – just outside the penalty area.

So there are two possibilities for the CR: (1) make the decision that advantage never materialized and award a DFK at the 20-yard line, near the corner of the penalty area; or (2) decide that having a DFK at the six, just outside the penalty area, is more advantageous to the offense and thus have the DFK taken from there. The problem is that it is unclear which spot is better for the offense. If they have a skilled free kicker who plans to try to score directly off the DFK, they are better kicking from the 20. If they prefer to cross, and have some good players in the air, they may prefer to kick from the six.

In this scenario, would the referee be allowed to give the offense its choice of spots for the DFK? If not, should he use his judgement as to which spot is better based on his analysis of which spot is better for Team A based on their personnel? Also, could the CR (under “Law 18”) hesitate once the whistle has been blown and see if the attackers, by their actions, give him a clue as to where they would rather take the kick from?

USSF answer (May 30, 2009):
In brief: It’s the referee’s job to apply the Law correctly, not to decide which of several locations is better for the attackers. A1 was fouled, advantage was applied based on the ability of A1’s team to continue the attack credibly via A2 receiving the ball from A1. This occurred, advantage realized. Then A2 is fouled with no adequate basis for applying advantage, so there is the location of the restart.

You can find a lengthier explanation in the Advice to Referees, 2009/2010 edition, not yet published:

5.6 ADVANTAGE
Referees have the power to apply (and signal) the advantage upon seeing a foul or misconduct committed if at that moment the terms of the advantage clause (Law 5, 12th item) were met. Applying advantage permits the referee to allow play to continue when the team against which the foul has been committed will actually benefit from the referee not stopping play.

The referee must remember that the advantage applies to the team of the fouled player and not just to the fouled player. Soccer is a team sport and the referee is expected to apply advantage if the fouled player’s team is able to retain or regain control of the ball.

The referee may return to and penalize the original foul if the advantage situation does not develop as anticipated after a short while (2-3 seconds). Referees should note that the “advantage” is not defined solely in terms of scoring a goal. Also, a subsequent offense by a player of the offending team must not be ignored while the referee allows the anticipated development of the advantage. Such an offense may either be recognized by stopping play immediately or by applying the advantage clause again.  Regardless of the outcome of the advantage call, the referee must deal appropriately with any misconduct at the next stoppage, before allowing play to be restarted. (See also 12.27.)

NOTE: After observing a foul or misconduct by a player, the referee decides to apply advantage and within a second or so, the ball goes out of play across a boundary line. The referee may still penalize the original offense.

The referee may also apply advantage during situations that are solely misconduct (both cautionable and send-off offenses) or to situations that involve both a foul and misconduct.

The use of advantage as described in Law 5 is strictly limited to infringements of Law 12 — both the section covering fouls and the later section on misconduct .  Other offenses under the Laws of the Game (e. g., violating Law 15 on a throw-in, offside, “second touch” violations at a restart, etc.) are not subject to the application of advantage.  As with any other infringement of the Law (e. g., the lack of corner flags, a whistle blown by a spectator, the illegal entry onto the field of a spectator), these are subject to a determination by the referee that the infraction is doubtful (uncertain that it occurred) or trifling (the infringement occurred but had no importance for the course of play).  For example, if a ball comes onto the field of play from a nearby field, it is not necessary to stop play unless and until this “foreign object” actually interferes with play or causes any confusion for the players.  Deciding not to stop play in such a case is not based on applying advantage but of following the time-honored principle embodied prior to 1996 in International Board Decision 8 of Law 5 (dropped in 1997 but still considered a core value in the Laws of the Game — see the first paragraph of Advice 5.5, above).

Referees must understand that advantage is not an absolute right. It must be balanced against other issues. The giving of the advantage is not required in all situations to which it might be applied. The referee may stop play despite an advantage if other factors (e.g., game control, severity of a foul or misconduct, possibility of player retaliation, etc.) outweigh the benefit of play continuing. As a practical matter, referees should generally avoid a decision to allow advantage for fouls which happen very early in the match, for fouls performed in front of the team areas, or for misconduct involving violence unless the chance for a goal is immediate.

A common misconception about advantage is that it is about deciding if a challenge is a foul. On the contrary, that decision has already been made because advantage cannot be applied to anything which is not a foul (meaning a violation of Law 12). Advantage, rather, is a decision about whether to stop play for the foul. Accordingly, giving the advantage is “calling the foul” and thus it must be as obvious to the players as signaling to stop play.

Inconspicuous advantage signals are as much to be avoided as a whistle which cannot be heard. Likewise, however, using the advantage signal to indicate that something is not a foul or misconduct, or is a doubtful or trifling offense, is equally wrong.

In determining whether there is persistent infringement, all fouls are considered, including those to which advantage has been applied.

One way to determine when to invoke the advantage is to apply the Four Ps: Possession, Potential, Personnel, and Proximity. Possession means active and credible control by the player who was fouled or a teammate. Potential means the likelihood of continuing an immediate and dangerous attack on the opponents’ goal. Potential is evaluated by judging the Personnel involved (the number and skills of the attackers relative to the number and skills of the defenders within 2-3 seconds of the offense) and Proximity (the distance to the opponents’ goal; the less the distance, the greater the potential).

…
Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

GOALKEEPER CONTROL

Posted on by

Question:
A keeper goes up in the air and establishes control , grabbing a high ball with both hands, and then as he brings it down, it hits a head or shoulder of a defender who is making no overt play on the ball and the ball goes into the goal. Goal scored or indirect kick coming out?

USSF answer (May 30, 2009):
By “defender” you mean a teammate of the goalkeeper, right? If so, then score the goal. There is no reason to stop play or to award an indirect free kick if a teammate interferes with the goalkeeper’s ability to play the ball.

If it had been an opponent (not playing the ball, as you state) who interfered with the goalkeeper, then the award of an indirect free kick for the goalkeeper’s team would be justified in most cases. The referee would certainly not award a goal in this case.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

MISCONDUCT VS. FOUL AND “NATURAL” STOPPAGE

Posted on by

Question:
Three questions about the same incident. The comprehensive answer is, as usual, at the bottom of the item.

A. Please evaluate the actions taken by the referee in the following scenario:

As red #6 makes a pass from the middle third of the field, blue #8 comes in late with a clearly reckless tackle. The pass finds red with an excellent attacking opportunity with pace toward the blue’s goal and numerical advantage. The referee opts to invoke the advantage clause.

The attack ends when red #10 takes a shot on goal which is handled and held by blue’s goalkeeper.

At this point, the referee stops the match to deal with blue #8’s misconduct, and awards red an indirect free kick from the point of the original offense.

Has the referee taken appropriate action in this case? If not, what are the referee’s options?

B. UEFA Champions League Final…

I realize you can’t officially comment on what FIFA referees do or don’t do, but if this were to occur in a USSF-sanctioned match…

2nd half, Barcelona player gets recklessly fouled by a Man U player in Barca’s defensive half. Referee plays the advantage for Barca.

Attack is continued while fouled Barca player is down and injured.

Shot on goal is eventually taken by Barcelona but saved by Man U goalkeeper, who then distributes ball to Man U teammates. Barca player is still down and referee still plans on issuing yellow card to original Man U player that committed the foul. Man U eventually plays the ball into touch, but is this sequence of events a good candidate for applying the fact that fouls and misconduct are two separate things by stopping play to deal with the misconduct once the advantage had been “spent” so to speak?

C. The referee has applied advantage to a foul that also involves a cardable offense, and plans to award the card after the advantage has dissipated. The resultant attack ends with a save and possession by the ‘keeper. The questions are: 1. Can the referee stop play at this time (to give the card), or must the referee wait until the ball next goes out of play before giving the card? 2. If the answer to #1 is the first option, is the restart an IFK or dropped ball? 3. Where?

USSF answer (May 28, 2009):
The referee has a very brief span of time in which to decide whether or not the advantage has been realized, no more than 2-3 seconds. If the advantage was not realized within the 2-3 seconds, then the original foul gets called, the yellow card is shown to Blue #8, and the restart is a direct free kick where the tackle occurred.

However, if the advantage was realized and maintained but then lost (as it clearly was when the GK saved the shot on goal), then the referee’s actions were entirely correct — the foul tackle is gone, the referee stopped play solely to handle the misconduct (reckless foul), and he restarted with an indirect free kick (stoppage for misconduct committed on the field during play by a player) where the misconduct occurred.

The only thing worth additional comment (simply because most referees would have failed to recognize what this referee recognized) is that the referee stopped play to deal with the misconduct when the advantage disappeared, rather than waiting for the so-called “natural” stoppage (the ball leaving the field) in order to come back to #8. There is no need to wait for a “natural” stoppage to come back and punish the miscreant.…

Advice to Referees

ASSISTANT REFEREES (MISSED FLAGS)

Posted on by

Question:
I actually have two questions for you.
1.) During a High School match a player struck an opponent right in front of the Assistant Referee which resulting a broken nose. Instead of the Asst. Referee raising her flag immediately, she insisted on waiting for the next stoppage of play. When the ball did go out of play for a throw in, the opponents quickly threw the ball back into play. The Center never saw the A.R. until later after play had restarted. Once the Center realizes the A.R. he then checked to see what she needed. There was no red card administered for the fact that he said that play had been restarted? I tried to inform him that this does not matter, that play is stop until the center recognizes the A.R.. Under Law 6 Assistant Referee (6.4 Missed Assistant Referee Signals and under Law 9 Ball Out Of Play 9.1 ) was I correct are not?
2.) Offside is called by the A.R. for offside the defending team kicks the ball out for a throw in. The attacker than quickly threw the ball in quickly and continued their attack, which the A.R. kept the flag up during this time. The Center recognized the A.R. and then called offside. Was this the correct procedure? Under Law 6 Assistant Referee it says you hold your flag until the defending team either gains clear possession are the defending team wins a throw in are goal kick.

USSF answer (May 28, 2009):
If the events had occurred in a game played under the Laws of the Game, correct procedure would be to follow the guidance given in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” 2009/2010 (not yet on the street):

6.4 MISSED ASSISTANT REFEREE SIGNALS
If the assistant referee signals a ball out of play but the referee does not see the signal for an extended period, during which play is stopped and restarted several times, the assistant referee should lower the flag.  The FIFA Referee Committee has declared that it is impossible for the referee to act on the assistant referee’s signal after so much play.

If the referee misses the assistant referee’s signal for offside, the assistant referee should stand at attention with the flag raised until the defending team gains clear possession or until a goal kick or throw-in is awarded to the defending team.  

Although the general rule is that a card for misconduct must be given at the next stoppage of play and that, if this does not occur, the opportunity to punish the misconduct has passed, the International Board’s “Interpretations” section has stated that this does not apply to serious foul play.  However, in order to make handling such incidents credible, certain conditions must apply.  The most important requirement is that the assistant referee must have signaled the original misconduct and maintained the signal despite it not being seen by the referee.  USSF has indicated that this requirement should be discussed thoroughly in the pre-game and that the referee should clearly indicate what sorts of misconduct would qualify for this treatment.  The International Board spoke specifically of “serious foul play” but USSF guidelines include any form of violence (including “violent conduct”).  If the referee becomes aware of the assistant referee’s signal for misconduct at a subsequent stoppage of play, the restart (after the misconduct is handled) would remain the same based on what stopped play in the first place.  If, upon becoming aware of an assistant referee’s signal for misconduct, play is stopped solely for this reason, the restart is an indirect free kick where the an indirect free kick where the original offense occurred.*

To avoid such situations, the referee should make eye contact with the assistant referees as often as possible.  In addition, the assistant referees must be alert for and mirror each other’s signals if needed to assist the referee.

…
Law 18 - Common Sense

THOSE NASTY RULES OF COMPETITION

Posted on by

Question:
I made a very controversial call this past weekend in a tournament that caused a lot of controversy both on the field, and with some referees. Here is the situation.

Tournament game, 14 year old boys game. The competition rules stated no stoppage time except for the case of an injury. There had been no injuries in the second half, and the score was tied 1-1. An attacker has the ball in the corner close to the flag and I glance at my watch to see that the time has just expired. I begin to blow my whistle as he crosses the ball into the goal area where it slips past the keeper and is tapped in by a teammate, after the first whistle to end the game had been blown. I did not allow the goal, because time had expired. Needless to say, the coach of the team who was on the attack was not happy. I know it was a controversial decision, and I keep running it in my head. Would it have been more fair to extend play for the extra 2-3 seconds needed for the team to score? Or would that have been unfair to the defending team to give up a goal after the time had technically run out? I spoke with a state level referee who said I should have let the play continue for a couple seconds. If the attacking team scores, then end the game, or if the defending team collected the ball, then end it at that point. This seems to be a letter of the laws versus the spirit of the laws issue. What would have been the correct call according to US Soccer?

USSF answer (May 28, 2009):
A point we make consistently is that if the referee accepts an assignment in a competition, the referee also accepts the rules of the competition. Please note that the dynamics change when operating under a rule that gives the referee flexibility (unlike the tournament rule here).…